HOME

 WRITE TO ME NEIL'S WEBSITE AJIT'S WEB SITE
 

ONE

Existence of God

GodsExistence2

 

Existence of God

This section is an attempt to bring together various arguments for the existence of God.

God Quote, Is God Real, Is There a God, Belief vs Unbelief

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Five Ways of proving the existence of a God

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century mediæval Italian theologian, and a Dominican monk of the Catholic Church. As a devout Christian, he developed these five arguments to prove that God exists.  In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas  proposed his Five Ways of proving the existence of a God.   Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.
Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica:

  1. The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
  2. Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
  3. The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
  4. Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
  5. The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God

"Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God"
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

Since then several authors have collected arguments for and against the existence of God.  A  "Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God" can be found in http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

These are:

1.         The Argument from Change

2.         The Argument from Efficient Causality

3.         The Argument from Time and Contingency

4.         The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

5.         The Design Argument

6.         The Kalam Argument

7.         The Argument from Contingency

8.         The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole

9.         The Argument from Miracles

10.       The Argument from Consciousness

11.       The Argument from Truth

12.       The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

13.       The Ontological Argument

14.       The Moral Argument

15.       The Argument from Conscience

16.       The Argument from Desire

17.       The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

18.       The Argument from Religious Experience

19.       The Common Consent Argument

20.       Pascal's Wager

 In the metaphysical order, the highest determinations of Being are Actuality (entelecheia - Greek: ἐντελέχεια) and Potentiality (dynamis - Greek: δύναμις). The former is perfection, realization, fullness of Being; the latter imperfection, incompleteness, perfectibility. The former is the determining, the latter the determinable principle. Actuality and potentiality are above all the Categories. They are found in all beings, with the exception of the Supreme Cause, in whom there is no imperfection, and, therefore, no potentiality. God is all actuality, Actus Purus.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Theological Arguments for the Existence of God can be categorised as follows:

Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Teleological or Design Argument
Ontological Argument
Axiological Argument
Argument from consciousness
Argument from experience

1.  Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument covers a lot of ground and takes a number of different forms, although the most common deal with two ideas:

·     that the existence of the universe requires God as an explanation (First Cause - this form is also called the Etiological Argument) or

·     that order in the universe requires God as an explanation.

Cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions:

·         the arguments from in causa (causality),

·          in esse (essentiality), in fieri (becoming), and

·          the argument from contingency.

The basic premise of all of these is that  something caused the Universe to exist,  and this First Cause must be God.

Is the world created or uncreated?—that is the first question.
Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and if sensible, then created; and if created, made by a cause, and the cause is the ineffable father of all things, who had before him an eternal archetype. For to imagine that the archetype was created would be blasphemy, seeing that the world is the noblest of creations, and God is the best of causes." Plato, Timaeus Translator: B. Jowett 2008

Xenophanes of Colophon (570-470 BCE), declared God to be the eternal unity, permeating the universe, and governing it by his thought.

The Eleatic School, called after the town of Elea ( Velia , Italy ), emphasized the doctrine of the One. Parmenides of Elea (510-440 BCE), affirmed the one unchanging existence to be alone true and capable of being conceived, and multitude and change to be an appearance without reality.  

This doctrine was defended Zeno of Elea (490-430 BCE) in a polemic against the common opinion which sees in things multitude, becoming, and change. Zeno propounded a number of celebrated paradoxes, much debated by later philosophers, which try to show that supposing that there is any change or multiplicity leads to contradictions.

Melissus of Samos (born c. 470 BCE) was another eminent member of this school.

The following pre-Socratic philosophers described reality as being monistic:

·         Thales:  Thales' most famous belief was his cosmological thesis, which held that the world started from water . "That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle of things that are."  "

  • Anaximander: Apeiron (meaning 'the undefined infinite'). Reality is some, one thing, but we cannot know what.
  • Anaximenes: Given his doctrine that all things are composed of air.   Air differs in essence in accordance with its rarity or density. When it is thinned it becomes fire, while when it is condensed it becomes wind, then cloud, when still more condensed it becomes water, then earth, then stones. Everything else comes from these
  • Heraclitus: everything is in constant flux and is symbolized by fire.
  • Parmenides: Being. Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided. We say there are things that exist and things that don't exist; Parmenides wrote that nothing doesn't exist, only existence does.

            • Post-Socrates:

 

  • Neopythagorians such as Apollonius of Tyana centered their cosmologies on the Monad or One.
  • Stoics, like Spinoza later, taught that there is only one substance, identified as God.
  • Middle Platonism under such works as Numenius of Apamea of Syria (2nd C) express the Universe emanating from the Monad or One.

Neoplatonism is Monistic.

  •  Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent god, 'The One,' of which subsequent realities were emanations. From The One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), the Cosmic Soul (Psyche), and the World (Cosmos).

It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greeks - Plato and Aristotle 

 

Plato (c. 427–347 BC)  in The Laws (Book X), argued that motion in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion". That required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain that motion.  Hence he came out with a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work Timaeus.

Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) argued against the idea of a first cause,  a "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" (πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his Physics and Metaphysics.  Aristotle's  argument was  that a non-eternal cosmos  would require an efficient first cause.  According to his theses, immaterial unmoved movers are eternal unchangeable beings that constantly think about thinking, but being immaterial, they're incapable of interacting with the cosmos and have no knowledge of what transpires therein.  
Aristotle believed that all changes were caused by some agency. He defines motion as the actuality of a potentiality.  He argued that there are four types of cause.
Firstly, there are ‘material causes’ - the primary matter from which things are made.
Secondly, there are ‘formal causes’, the designs, patterns and forms that are impressed on primary matter. 
Thirdly, there are ‘efficient causes’, the mechanisms whereby designs are realised. 
Finally there are ‘final causes’, which are the purposes for which objects are designed and built.

 In the physical order, potentiality and actuality become Matter and Form. To these are to be added the Agent (Efficient Cause) and the End (Final Cause); but as the efficiency and finality are to be reduced, in ultimate analysis, to Form, we have in the physical order two ultimate principles of Being, namely, Matter and Form

http://iraknol.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/aristotlefourc-overview1.jpg
Illustration Ira Glickstein 2009

In book 12 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle used the phrase τι ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ ("something which moves [other things] without [itself] being moved [by anything]") – i. e., the unmoved mover. When applied in his physics, this led to the view that all natural motions are uncaused and therefore self-explanatory. Given that causality is linear, causality or motion must be finally attributed to a first cause, which logically cannot itself be moved, i. e., the unmoved mover. To Aristotle the first cause is energy or energeia (in Greek) or actus (in Latin): energy causes motion. This is the foundation for the theory of actualism, a non-idealist philosophy of nature, science, logic, and mathematics. Aristotle's actualistic ontology is a denial of "potential ontology" – that Being is the first cause of the cosmos.

  

Plotinus, (ca. 204/5–270 CE) a third-century Neo-Platonist, taught that the One transcendent absolute caused the universe to exist simply as a consequence of its existence - "creatio ex deo."   He criticised the Aristotle for making a self-thinking mind the first principle of the universe. His major objection is that any mind, if engaged in thinking, must be thinking of something, and thus mind cannot be a simple entity.  Plotinus argued that not only is there the duality of subject and object, the thinker and the thought, but that the thought itself is a multiplicity.   Like all else that is plural, it has a quasi-material component as well which can be called “intelligible matter.” His disciple Proclus stated 'The One is God'.

 

 

 It is this idea that Sankaracharya of Advaita Vedanta reiterated in the 8th century A.D after a thousand years as part of the Hindu revival seperating itself from Christianity. His contribution was that everything else other than the one was just a dream - an illusion - in the mind of the One.  The word Nondualism originally came from the Sanskrit word “advaita”, which literally translates as “nondualism” (a=not or non; dvaita=two, dual, or dualism).   Müller (1823–1900), in the monumental Sacred Books of the East (1879),  rendered "advaita" as "Monism" under influence of the then prevailing discourse of English translations of the Classical Tradition of the Ancient Greeks such as Thales (624 BCE–c.546 BCE) and Heraclitus  (c.535 BCE–c.475 BCE).

Islamic philosopher Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā  known as Avicenna (c. 980–1037) inquired into the question of being, in which he distinguished between essence (Mahiat) and existence (Wujud). He argued that the fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves could not originate and interact with the movement of the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things. Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an agent cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing thing.  This therefore made the creation real and not an illusion.  This is in direct contradiction to advaita of Sankara.


John Philoponus,  (490 to 570) a Christian philosopher, scientist, and theologian also known as John the Gramarian or John of Alexandria, " find a contradiction between the Greek pagan insistence on the eternity of the world and the Aristotelian rejection of the existence of any actual infinite." Jewish and Christian theology always insisted that though the creation proceded from the One who alone is ultimate, the creation was not just an illusion or a dream but a reality.

2.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument

 

Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī (1058–1111 C.E.) 

Kalam is an Arabic word to mean "the talk" and was popular with Jewish and Islamic scholars.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

The first mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that the existence of an infinite number of anything leads to logical contradictions. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past would be infinite, i.e. there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning.

There are two types of infinites, potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are purely conceptual, and clearly both can and do exist. Mathematicians employ the concept of infinity to solve equations. We can imagine things being infinite. Actual infinites, though, cannot exist. For an actual infinite to exist it is not sufficient that we can imagine an infinite number of things; for an actual infinite to exist there must be an infinite number of things. This, however, leads to logical problems.  It is to be noted that the Bible do not have a word for eternity.  Instead it uses the word ages after ages - Aeonios.  Bible counts finite events not in terms of eternity for anything in the Universe or its existence.   The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time.

The universe exists and
Therefore
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) That cause we define as God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

A similar paradox arises if the past is infinite. If there exists an infinite past, then if we were to assign a number to each past moment then every real number (i.e. every postive integer) would be assigned to some moment. There would therefore be no unassigned number to be assigned to the present moment as it passes into the past. However, by reassigning the numbers such that moment number one becomes moment number two, and moment number two becomes moment number three, and so on, we could free up moment number one to be assigned to the present. If the past is infinite, therefore, then there both is and is not a free number to be assigned to the present as it passes into the past. 

That such a paradox results from the assumption that the past is infinite, it is claimed, demonstrates that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. The past, it seems, cannot be infinite, because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments. If the past cannot be infinite, then the universe must have a beginning. This is the first mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.

The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite created by Successive Addition

The second mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that an actual infinite cannot be created by successive addition. If one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.

The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.

If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning. This is the second mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.

 

The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite that has been Traversed

The third mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that actual infinites cannot be traversed.

If I were to set out on a journey to an infinitely distant point in space, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been walking for, a part of the journey would still remain. I would never arrive at my destination. Infinite space cannot be traversed.

Similarly, if I were to start counting to infinity, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been counting for, I would still only have counted to a finite number. It is impossible to traverse the infinite set of numbers between zero and infinity. This also applies to the past. If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time.

Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. The universe has a beginning. This is the third mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.

If the universe has a beginning and was caused:

What caused the First Cause?

 One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.  The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.

However the fact of necessity of a First Cause  does not identify that First Cause necessarily with the definition associated with God.     However the Big Bang is not an acceptable first cause as the event clearly began and is quite finite. Hence the first premise in both formulations above seems to exclude this conclusion as a possibility.  Unless this singularity from which the Big Bang occurred has dimensions which are unknowable to us.  This exactly is the assumption of God imply.  This conclusion is also supported by the recent Quantum definitions of the universe in which the negative time wave function definitly is strikingly different from the wave function of the physical universe when time is positive.

Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.

Existence of causal loops

Time like curve  and wormhole for future being creates the present universe (New Scientist).

A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where travel backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.


“There is the theory of the moebius. A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop, from which there is no escape. When we reach that point, whatever happened will happen again.” -Lieutenant Commander Worf, Star Trek: TNG, “Time Squared”

The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."

Existence of infinite causal chains

David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:

If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained.

Nevertheless, David E. White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious.  Furthermore Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause.  To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent.  A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

The Infinite Universe Theory  claims that the physical world is governed by an infinite universal causality.  Severinsen argues that there is an "infinite" and complex causal structure.  White tried to introduce an argument “without appeal to the principle of sufficient reason and without denying the possibility of an infinite causal regress”.

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument from contingency applies even if the universe had no beginning, but it would still have to be sustained in being at any particular moment by God. According to Aquinas, the universe cannot, at any particular moment, be causing itself. Even if causes and effects in the universe looped back on themselves, they would still, at any particular moment, be contingent and thus would have to be caused by God. They could not be causing themselves.

3.  A teleological or design argument

The Greek word, telos  means an end goal or purpose.  The design argument was first developed by the ancient Greeks and popularized by William Paley

 
Bishop William Paley (1743-1805)

 The Argument from Design  is arguing from the existence of "design" in the universe and to the logical conclusion that the design requires a "designer" who is defined as God. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology. Some philosophers, such as Plato, proposed a divine Artificer as the designer; others, including Aristotle, rejected that conclusion in favor of a more naturalistic teleology.

 William Paley developed these ideas with his version of the watch maker analogy. He argued that in the same way a watch's complexity implies the existence of its maker, so too one may infer the Creator of the universe exists, given the evident complexity of Nature.

wp-content/uploads/2011/12/DNA_replication1.jpg

The whole creation is structurally complex and intricate.  Yet there is a purpose for the design which is unlikely to have developed by chance.    Look at the human body which even the most modern medical expert wont deny their order, purpose or the design behind the intricate structures of body and its parts.  The transmission of heredity through DNA is just one example of supreme design.

Again the universe itself is in some sense "fine-tuned" for the possibility of complex chemistry and thus of life. :

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe... The impression of design is overwhelming." [Paul Davies 1988, p. 203]

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan. [Arno Penzias (Nobel prize winning physicist): in Margenau and Varghese 1992, p. 83.]

"In addition, physicists are concluding that ours is the simplest possible universe, consistent with the existence of life. It appears that our universe has been deliberately designed so as to permit life and to maximize the simplicity of its laws."( Robert C. Koons:  Post-Agnostic Science: How Physics Is Reviving The Argument From Design  http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/svsu.html)

++++++++++++++++
Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rich Deem

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe

Parameter

Max. Deviation

Ratio of Electrons:Protons

1:1037

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity

1:1040

Expansion Rate of Universe

1:1055

Mass Density of Universe

1:1059

Cosmological Constant

1:10120

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos :

"One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America . Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037" (p. 115)

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

  1. strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  2. weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
  3. gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller
    : stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
  4. electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
  5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller
    : all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
  6. ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
  7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
  8. expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller
    : universe would collapse, even before stars formed
  9. entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
  10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
  11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
  12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
  13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
  14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
  15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
  16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller
    : planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
  17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
  18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
  19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
  20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller
    : same as above
  21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
  22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
  23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
  24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
  25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
  26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
  28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
  29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger
    : same result
  30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
  31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger
    : same result
  33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

The nature of the universe reveals that a purely naturalistic cause for the universe is extremely unlikely and, therefore, illogical. One cannot say that a miraculous naturalistic event is a scientific explanation. Miracles are only possible when an immensely powerful Being intervenes to cause them. The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,  and that He created the universe.  When a model doesn't work, scientists must be willing to give up their model for a model that fits the facts better. In this case, the supernatural design model fits the data much better than the naturalistic random chance model.

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
by Rich Deem

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

The quotes

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 
Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York , Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York : Simon and Schuster, p.203.

 "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". 
Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling , IL , Searchlight Publications, p. 200.

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling , IL , Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle , IL , Open Court , p. 83.

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle , IL , Open Court , p. 52.

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York , W.W. Norton, p. 116.

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface
Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Harrison , E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York , Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling , IL , Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling , IL , Searchlight Publications, p. 223.

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens ( Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle , IL , 1992).

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois ) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."
Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University .

 “There is . . . one scientific conclusion which I wish to put forward as a positive statement and, I trust, fruitful outcome of the present investigation. The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution are now seen to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its activities; they become, therefore, far more important in biology than has been previously suspected. For the whole evolutionary process. both cosmic and organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric.”
Lawrence J. Henderson . a professor of biological chemistry at Harvard and first president of the History of Science Society. 1913 "The Fitness of the Environment", subtitled “An Inquiry into the Biological Signiicance of the Properties of Matter.” chapter on “Life and the Cosmos,”

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”-  Albert Einstein.

http://discoveryenterprise.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/panspermia-tm.jpg

4.  Ontological Argument

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.  The argument essentially is  "if we can imagine anything it is likely to be true."

But there had been lot of objections on this assumption and hence this argument.

St Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

Seventeenth century René Descartes,  eighteenth century  Gottfried Leibniz, and in more recent times, Kurt Gödel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear whether we should really say that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the existence of God.

Oppy 1995, presents eight major kinds of ontological arguments, viz:

  1. definitional ontological arguments;
  2. conceptual (or hyperintensional) ontological arguments;
  3. modal ontological arguments;
  4. Meinongian ontological arguments;
  5. experiential ontological arguments;
  6. mereological ontological arguments;
  7. higher-order ontological arguments; and
  8. ‘Hegelian’ ontological arguments;

Examples of all but the last follow.

1.  God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

2.   I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

3.  It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Malcolm 1960, Hartshorne 1965, and Plantinga 1974 for closely related arguments.)

4.   [It is analytic, necessary and a priori that] Each instance of the schema “The F G is F” expresses a truth. Hence the sentence “The existent perfect being is existent” expresses a truth. Hence, the existent perfect being is existent. Hence, God is existent, i.e. God exists. (The last step is justified by the observation that, as a matter of definition, if there is exactly one existent perfect being, then that being is God.)

5.  The word ‘God’ has a meaning that is revealed in religious experience. The word ‘God’ has a meaning only if God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Rescher 1959 for a live version of this argument.)

6.   I exist. Therefore something exists. Whenever a bunch of things exist, their mereological sum also exists. Therefore the sum of all things exists. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists.

7.   Say that a God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only those worlds in which God exists. Not all properties are God properties. Any property entailed by a collection of God-properties is itself a God-property. The God-properties include necessary existence, necessary omnipotence, necessary omniscience, and necessary perfect goodness. Hence, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily omnipotent, necessarily omniscient, and necessarily perfectly good being (namely, God).

This is evidently a purely logic based argument and therefore are amenable to counter arguments and validity of logic in establishing reality itself.

 

5.  Axiological Arguments

jpg_law_justice_003

The Arguments from Morals and Values are two separate, but connected arguments for the existence of God. Together they make up what are known as the Axiological Arguments (axios = value). They assert that the existence of values and/or of morals proves that God exists.

C.S. Lewis explains in his book, Mere Christianity, that the inate moral law possessed by every person is one of the strongest proofs for the existence of Almighty God. The argument basically goes like this: 

1. Mankind is indwelt with a basic moral law. 
2. A moral law implies a moral law giver. 
3. That moral law giver is God.

This "moral law" being referred to is sometimes called a conscience. 

 6.  Argument from Consciousness

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

If there is nothing other than matter, can we explain mind and spirits?   Evidently Mind and Spirits are not matter.  Can we explain these purely in terms of matter and its motion?    There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of molecules in a brain can create consciousness .  Unless we assume dimensions other than material we will be including all the qualities of God to Matter.  Yes that way we can avoid the assumption of God if Matter is capable of producing mind and spirit and consciousness.  Even within the quantum cosmos this discrepancy exist. Is the quantum nature of micro-cosmos and macro properties of our visible universe are they all inherent material properties?  That is the assumption of dialectical materialism i.e.  quantitative changes give rise to qualitative changes.  If we assume this we can avoid the God assumption because we are attributing consciousness, intelligence and purpose to matter itself.

A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, but that quantum theory provides the missing ingredients. Several theorists have therefore proposed quantum mind (QM) theories of consciousness.[27] Notable theories falling into this category include the Holonomic brain theory of Karl Pribram and David Bohm, and the Orch-OR theory formulated by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Some of these QM theories offer descriptions of phenomenal consciousness, as well as QM interpretations of access consciousness.

 

http://www.trans4mind.u-net.com/transform2.2.htm

File:RobertFuddBewusstsein17Jh.png 
Representation of consciousness from the seventeenth century.  (wiki)

   

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a conscious and intelligent non-visible living energy force. This energy force is the matrix mind of all matter.” - Max Planck, Nobel price winner and developer of Quantum theory


7.  Argument from Experience

 

The Argument from Experience starts from the premise that all our knowledge of the world essentially relies upon experience.  Obviously, nothing in science is proven or disproven purely through logic, reason or laws.  Laws of science are established on the basis of repeated experiments by different persons in different times and places and conditions.  Conflicting results produces revision of theories and changes in laws.   Thus in science, everything is provisional. We develop our scientific laws and theories based on personal experience - in the laboratories we do experiments to establish and prove the laws repeatedly in every generation. So the ultimate deciding factor is the personal experience and facts.   If God is a factor in daily life, we should be able to experience God in a personal way. In fact all scientific understanding is based on experiments verified over time and space by varied people.  So also we should decide the existence of God and His character on the basis of experience of long generations of men and women.  Thus we are talking about scientific verification of the existence of God.   It is this what decides faith in God.    After all "the proof of the pudding is in eating it."

Evidently like all scientific assertions in Physics, the existence of God cannot be proved nor disproved only deduced just the same way as we assume the existence of elementary particles from their effects in nature.  In the case of God our experience will go beyond the material science into other dimensions of existence - Body, Mind, Spirit, and Consciousness and all possible dimensions which we have not been able to define or conceive.   


http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/enviroprojects/what.html